by his remarks
(pp. 438 and 439) on the Convention of Pretoria. These remarks have such
a bearing on the present situation that I beg you will allow me to quote
them:"--

"In relation to South African affairs he (Dr. Dale) felt silence to be
impossible. He had welcomed the policy initiated by the Convention of
Pretoria (1881) conceding independence to the Transvaal, but imposing on
the Imperial Government responsibility for the protection of native
races within and beyond the frontiers. In correspondence with members of
the House of Commons and in more than one public utterance, he expressed
his satisfaction that the freedom of the Boers did not involve the
slavery of the natives. At first the outlook was hopeful, but the Boers
soon began to chafe against the restrictions to which they were
subjected.... The Rev. John Mackenzie brought a lamentable record of
outrage and cruelty.... Dr. Dale particularly urged that the Government
should insist on carrying out the 18th article of the Convention of
Pretoria. 'The policy of the Government seemed to me both righteous and
expedient, singularly courageous and singularly Christian. But that
policy included two distinct elements. It restored to the Boers internal
independence, it reserved to the British Government powers for the
protection of native races on the Transvaal frontier. It is not
unreasonable for those who in the face of great obloquy supported the
Government in recognising the independence of the Transvaal, to ask that
it should also use its treaty powers, and use them effectively for the
protection of the natives.' To this statement the _Pall Mall_ (John
Morley) replied that the suzerainty over the Transvaal maintained by us
was a 'shadowy term,' and that those who demanded that our reserved
rights should be enforced were bound to face the question whether they
were willing to fight to enforce them. Was Dr. Dale ready to run the
risk of a fresh war in South Africa? Dr. Dale replied, should the
British Government and British people regard with indifference the
outrages of the Boers against tribes that we had undertaken to
protect?... 'If the Government of the Republic cannot prevent such
crimes as are declared to have been committed in the Bechuana country,
and if we are indifferent to them, we shall have the South African
tribes in a blaze again before many years are over, and for the safety
of our Colonists we shall be compelled to interfere.' In the ensuing
Session the Ministerial policy was challenged in both Houses of
Parliament, and in the Commons Mr. Forster indicted the Government for
its impotence to hold the Transvaal Republic to its engagements. Dr.
Dale wrote a long letter to Mr. Gladstone:--'If it had been said that
power to protect the natives should be taken but not used, it is at
least possible that a section of the party might have declined to
approve the Ministerial policy.... The one point to which I venture to
direct attention is the contrast, as it appears to me, between the
declaration of Ministers in '81, in relation to the native races
generally, and the position which has been taken in the present debate.'
Mr. Gladstone's reply was courteous, but not reassuring."

* * * * *

Mr. Mackenzie, British Commissioner for Bechuanaland, came to England in
1882. In the following year the Delegates from the Transvaal came to
London, and in 1884 the Convention was signed, which was called the
"London Convention."

These years included events of great interest. Mr. Mackenzie
wrote:--"On my way to England I met a friend who had just landed in
South Africa from England. He warned me 'If you say a good word for
South Africa, Mr. Mackenzie, you will get yourself insulted. They will
not hear a word on its behalf in England; they are so disgusted with the
mess that has been made.'

'They had good reason to be disgusted, but I want all the same to tell
them a number of things